The never-ending League Restructure debate (Many merged threads)

[sheddings69]

so who do you have in mind to replace him?

do you not see the irony in the fact that prom and reg was largely responsible for the decline of your club?

Talking complete nonsense again! The present club started up with no debt and 3000 turned up to watch its first game. It's since had numerous winding up orders and languishes with less than 500 supporters.....purely bad management and nothing to do with P&R clearly!!!

[nadera78]

Continually repeating "Licencing has failed / been a disaster" does not make it true.

 

Both the RFL and the clubs admit that licencing is better than the previous system. But the SL clubs don't like the costs of administering the licencing system, whilst the RFL are trying to do something to calm the Championship clubs.

[nadera78]

And if anyone wants confirmation that the moaners will never stop complaining just go and look at the Sheffield-London thread. Absolutely chock-a-block full of anger and conspiracy theories.

[l'angelo mysterioso]

Talking complete nonsense again! The present club started up with no debt and 3000 turned up to watch its first game. It's since had numerous winding up orders and languishes with less than 500 supporters.....purely bad management and nothing to do with P&R clearly!!!

the 'present club'

what happened to the previous one(s)?

 

how many timed were oldham promoted and relegated? Presumably they prospered during this era.

who would you have instead of hamilton?

What would you have him or her do?

[HOLYMOLY]

ah yes the relegation battles: 1983 a vintage year at your club for them, as well as cup glory.

 

a game of rugby league is exciting by definition.

was there no passion and excitement before 1973?

over a century of history and only 22 years of passion and excitement.

You sir are the biggest doom and gloom merchant on this forum.Everything you post is negative and stick

the knife into most comments .

How big is that chip ?

[l'angelo mysterioso]

You sir are the biggest doom and gloom merchant on this forum.Everything you post is negative and stick

the knife into most comments .

How big is that chip ?

how big are those blinkers?

 

edit: you have my sympathy for having read everything I post.

Edited July 13, 2013 by l'angelo mysterioso

[Duff Duff]

Licensing hasn't been a disaster. What has been a disaster is the current structure of the competition with 14 club league with an 8 team playoff. As there are only 6 or 7 decent teams the regular season has been completely devalued . That structure has nothing to do with licensing.

A 10 or 12 team competition which has a 5 team playoff system and in which all the clubs spend up to the salary cap would be very competitive. All the games would matter and the competition would be "exciting".

Until the clubs stop showing blatant self interest the sport will never grow. It is the clubs' self interest which has crippled rugby league for more than 100 years. Until the petty parochialism within the game is consigned to the dustbin rugby league in England will remain stunted.

[sheddings69]

the 'present club'

what happened to the previous one(s)?

how many timed were oldham promoted and relegated? Presumably they prospered during this era.

who would you have instead of hamilton?

What would you have him or her do?

At the start of the SL era, Oldham had no debt. The club(s) have been relegated once in the last 25 years. Crowds on average were about 700% what they are now and they were solvent. Prospered? Relatively yes.

The new cub in 1997 started with no debt. Who would I have in place of CH? Anyone.

What would I have him do? Speak to the fans may be a start. Oldham have the single largest RL supporters trust whose membership almost matches attendance figures.

As you well know, I personally don't think P&R is necessarily the answer. However, belief that it is anything whatsoever to do with my clubs demise is the work of a fantasist.

[Lobbygobbler]

Licensing hasn't been a disaster. What has been a disaster is the current structure of the competition with 14 club league with an 8 team playoff. As there are only 6 or 7 decent teams the regular season has been completely devalued . That structure has nothing to do with licensing.

A 10 or 12 team competition which has a 5 team playoff system and in which all the clubs spend up to the salary cap would be very competitive. All the games would matter and the competition would be "exciting".

Until the clubs stop showing blatant self interest the sport will never grow. It is the clubs' self interest which has crippled rugby league for more than 100 years. Until the petty parochialism within the game is consigned to the dustbin rugby league in England will remain stunted.

There are some aspects of licensing which have been good. Not the omission of P&R, but the off the pitch aspects (finance, youth, etc). I hope that this can be fused together with P&R

[l'angelo mysterioso]

At the start of the SL era, Oldham had no debt. The club(s) have been relegated once in the last 25 years. Crowds on average were about 700% what they are now and they were solvent. Prospered? Relatively yes.

The new cub in 1997 started with no debt. Who would I have in place of CH? Anyone.

What would I have him do? Speak to the fans may be a start. Oldham have the single largest RL supporters trust whose membership almost matches attendance figures.

As you well know, I personally don't think P&R is necessarily the answer. However, belief that it is anything whatsoever to do with my clubs demise is the work of a fantasist.

they had no ground either

why was that?

 

In what way was the club mismanaged? if p and r didn't do your club in like it did others my sincere apologies, but I would genuinley like to know what did.

[Duff Duff]

All the good aspects of licensing are due to the clubs having a guaranteed place in the competition from one season to the next so they have invest for the long term. Promotion and relegation would stop all that.

The key problem with Super League is there are too many clubs and too many clubs in the playoffs. It completely devalues the regular league matches.

[Lobbygobbler]

All the good aspects of licensing are due to the clubs having a guaranteed place in the competition from one season to the next so they have invest for the long term. Promotion and relegation would stop all that.

The key problem with Super League is there are too many clubs and too many clubs in the playoffs. It completely devalues the regular league matches.

Well we'll have to agree to disagree. Anyway I'm going outside to soak up some sun!

[The Parksider]

Heaven forbid that people should provide hard information to support their argument

Bit of hard information for Mr. Mumby Magic.

I count 11 Championship clubs who have spent all 17 seasons of the Superleague Era in the championship.

In 1995 they averaged gates of 1837, today they average 957. they've been cut in half in the modern era. Why is not a topic for this thread.

Back on thread if you take the two most poorly attended clubs out of SL then on last years figures average crowds would rise by around 500 fans a game.

Another "business" reason for SL to make the change.

[Ian (Pencil) Elliott]

And it continues, licencing was working but..................

Licensing was not working because if it was they would not have changed it , end of and for anyone to suggest that it was changed to keep championship clubs happy really lives in cloud cuckoo land.

Licensing was a mess and it has failed, get over it. Denying it won't make things better.

[jpmc]

Do you think so? 70% rise in a narrow sporting market overshadowed by sports given a much much greater advantage by SKY than we ever had?

Is it not a case of some clubs stagnating at best whilst the likes of leeds,wigan and warrington have increased there attendances quite a lot?

[The Parksider]

1. As has been mentioned before licensing/franchising isn't the problem the problem is the way that it has been administered. As a fudge they expanded the league to 14 and allowed in clubs that couldn't spend to the salary cap and weren't fit for purpose.

2. Sorry but if Featherstone weren't being bankrolled by a benefactor they wouldn't be anywhere near getting into the Super League. Not a hope in hell.

3. The fundamental problem is Rugby League is skint and it can't afford the luxury of promotion and relegation. Promotion and relegation will undermine the commercial stability of the Super League clubs, it will deter rational commercial investors and it will undermine the development of British players. All in the name of "excitement". Brilliant idea.

1. In 1996 Ralph Rimmer explained licensing as the RFL saw it. It was a system to set standards for clubs to grow their businesses up to, and the removal of promotion and relegation was to allow those clubs chosen as best to grow their businesses time to achive this growth without pressure.

The real problem is many clubs could not grow their businesses despite being provided with standards to meet and time to meet them. The system didn't work because the clubs could not get the growth and that was because SKY money was not enough investment in itself, private investors came, went and stopped investiong and crowds did not rise by enough.

Rimmer's plan failed because not enough rich men and fans were turned on enough by professional Rugby league.

2. Be fair, would Huddersfield survive SL without a rich benefactor? If Featherstone have one in Mr. Nahaboo SL needs his money. Also be fair on the Fev fans, when we discussed the crowds they may get in SL none of them disputed about 5,000 would be about the sensible estimate. Also what they did say was that they would find it hard, but if they could avoid relegation then it would be a great journey.

3. It's been established that there are around six, seven, eight real Superleague clubs operating to decent standards with adequate investment. Going forward these are the clubs who will be the "Super" part of our 12 club Superleague. In addition we have clubs who are still striving to join that group for instance Toulouse claim to have a lot of investment, Wakefirld have just set out how Newmarket can take them forward - just as good news has also been announced by the club on the ground.

For the life of me Duff Duff I can't see P & R mattering much to the top 10 clubs.

Before they removed P & R it was something the big clubs never worried about. Through the application of "standards" several clubs were refused promotion anyway, and those who got it but had no money sank after one season. Those who stayed up generally had a rich man at the helm and Superleague would be fools to refuse that money.

[Padge]

Bit of hard information for Mr. Mumby Magic.

I count 11 Championship clubs who have spent all 17 seasons of the Superleague Era in the championship.

In 1995 they averaged gates of 1837, today they average 957. they've been cut in half in the modern era. Why is not a topic for this thread.

Back on thread if you take the two most poorly attended clubs out of SL then on last years figures average crowds would rise by around 500 fans a game.

Another "business" reason for SL to make the change.

 

You have to understand one thing about the sort of figures you are quoting and that is what happens to averages when the lower tier splits into two. There is a disproportionate fall in the average for the lowest tier, look at the charts I have posted in the past it shows it quite clearly. When you make these claims you must factor in the effects of having two or three divisions has.

[nadera78]

And it continues, licencing was working but..................

Licensing was not working because if it was they would not have changed it , end of and for anyone to suggest that it was changed to keep championship clubs happy really lives in cloud cuckoo land.

Licensing was a mess and it has failed, get over it. Denying it won't make things better.

You can continue to make things up if you like, or you can read what's been said by BlaKe Solly. Both the RFL and clubs admit licencing is better than the previous system. You can ignore that all you like but it's a fact, straight from the horses mouth.

 

Now, what was that about living in cloud cuckoo land?

[Padge]

In fact I'll post this one, aggregate (not average) attendances.

 

 

 

Edited July 13, 2013 by Padge

[Jim from Oz]

Licensing hasn't been a disaster. What has been a disaster is the current structure of the competition with 14 club league with an 8 team playoff. As there are only 6 or 7 decent teams the regular season has been completely devalued . That structure has nothing to do with licensing.

A 10 or 12 team competition which has a 5 team playoff system and in which all the clubs spend up to the salary cap would be very competitive. All the games would matter and the competition would be "exciting".

 

 

Totally agree.

[Lobbygobbler]

Do you seriously think that was a proper attempt at licensing? 3 years or so? It's a pathetic attempt.

Its like a man who weighs 30 stone trying to lose weight in a month, then because he hasn't lost 15 stone sacks it and declares dieting as a waste of time. That's what has happened here.

It will be 6 years actually.

I think the 3 year gap was too big, and the fact that the best team was not promoted (even if they met criteria) was wrong.

The trial would have worked better with a more dynamic 2 year cycle with the best team or best two teams promoted.

[John Drake]

Licensing was not working because if it was they would not have changed it ,

 

That's what people on the other side of the fence will say about P & R, though. It's a completely circular argument. It also assumes things in RL change on the basis of actual evidence, which if they did, the results probably wouldn't be so variable and prone to changing back again, as they often do when promises made in their favour do not materialise.

[Dave T]

Only a 4k increase after 18 years seems very dissapointing considering all the advantages that sky tv have given

So a 70% increase is not impressive?

[Dave T]

Then don't debate but it does not mean you are right and Lobby is wrong.

Spot on - this is the issue - too many people state their opinion as fact and refuse to budge, accept any points from anybody else and repeat time and time again.

 

This forum very very rarely engages in proper debate.

[l'angelo mysterioso]

Spot on - this is the issue - too many people state their opinion as fact and refuse to budge, accept any points from anybody else and repeat time and time again.

 

This forum very very rarely engages in proper debate.

I disagree

everybody thinks that their opinion is right, which isn't quite the same thing. people of whtever persuasion are bound to do this. If they didn't think their opinion was right then they wouldn't have it.

 

The debate is often one sided in terms of validity when people either cant or wont back up their views with credible information